Subscribe To Our Newsletter
IMPORTANT: Please add editor@itatonline.info to your contacts to prevent mails from us going into the Spam/ Junk folder

Click On The Click To Download Icon To Download The Judgement In PDF Format

Download: salman_khan_147_292BB_retrospective.pdf


S. 292BB does not have retrospective effect

The AO issued a notice u/s 148 to make a reassessment. However, as a notice u/s 143(2) was not issued, the Tribunal quashed the reassessment. The Department filed an appeal before the High Court where it relied on s. 292BB (which provides that the failure to issue notice cannot be objected to if the assessee has appeared in the proceeding), inserted by the Finance Act 2008 w.e.f. 1.4.2008 and argued that the said provision was retrospective in operation and the reassessment was valid. HELD by the High Court dismissing the appeal:

The issue of a notice u/s 143(2) is mandatory. The failure to do so renders the reassessment void (J.M.Scindia 300 ITR 193 (Bom) followed). S. 292BB was inserted w.e.f. 1.4.2008 and came into operation prospectively for AY 1999-2000 and onwards.

Note: See the contrary view in Panchvati Motors 243 CTR 189 (P&H) that s. 292BB applies to pending matters

3 Responses to “CIT vs. Salman Khan (Bombay High Court)”

  1. sorry Revenue people has to undergo sensible legal training it seems as the revenue officer do not understand what is mandatory and what is not!. court is right in the observation please . so we need courts else every thing becomes arbitrary in the administration by revenue,is it not?
    I will suggest as an ex civil servant, that none of the administration people shall have a law degree, as unholy way of knowledge distributed only encourages perversion;

    UPSC like RBI need to follow the recruitment rules; if a post is just for a basic graduate need not be open to higher educated, after all jobs when specify minimum qualification then more qualified blocks entry to the minimum qualified so natural justice is never allow higher qualified to get entry at the level minimum qualification is prescribed. this rule used to be in MPSC (MADRAS PUBLIC SERVICES COMMISSION ) PRIOR TO 1960S. BRITISH SYSTEM SEEMS TO BE DONE BY LEVEL HEADED APROACH.
    I remember in 1960s, when Central Excise commissioner of West Bengal region then asked permission to recruit LDCs from among graduates from CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, (CBR) GOI , THEN THE CBR STUDIED the matter and rejected the proposal and said in its DO to the commissioner, then, when LDC post is for Matriculates, the object was to give jobs only to matriculates in LDC cadre and so Graduates are not eligible and graduates can be taken as UDC(upper division clerks) that system worked wonderfully.

    The object of every job is dependent on the nature of job that person is supposed to do. So either over qualified or under qualified is not eligible besides jobs openings need to be for education levels normally terminated like SSC, Diploma holders, graduates,post graduates, professional qualified in graduation, then post graduation levels….

    So UPSC need to revise its policies of recruitment to keep a control on various departments indents for recruitment….

    Previous recruitment methods are not something foolish is it not but really weighed by balanced judgements.

    It only means perversion is under control!

  2. Dharmaraj Iyer says:

    “S. 292BB was inserted w.e.f. 1.4.2008 and came into operation prospectively for AY 1999-2000 and onwards.”- This sentence was quoted on CIT vs. Salman Khan (Bombay High Court)’S CASE. Sir my question is if it is not retrospective then Sec.292BB will come into force from A.Y.2008-09 onwards as it was inserted with effect from 1-04-2008. Thus in the above sentence it was quoted that it is applicable from A.Y.1999-2000 onwards. Please resolve this query………….

  3. Dharmaraj Iyer says:

    “S. 292BB was inserted w.e.f. 1.4.2008 and came into operation prospectively for AY 1999-2000 and onwards.”- This sentence was quoted on CIT vs. Salman Khan (Bombay High Court)’S CASE. Sir my question is if it is not retrospective then Sec.292BB will come into force from A.Y.2008-09 onwards as it was inserted with effect from 1-04-2008. Thus in the above sentence it was quoted that it is applicable from A.Y.1999-2000 onwards. Please resolve this query………….

Leave a Reply

Current ye@r *


If you are a tax professional, you must sign up for our free newsletter. Why? Because we keep you informed about the latest developments in the world of tax. We focus only on the most important must-read judgements & articles that will impact your day-to-day professional work. You can see a chronological listing of all our postings on twitter & facebook


IMPORTANT: After signing up & clicking on the confirmation mail, send a test/ blank mail to editor@itatonline.info. Why? Because it is the easiest way to add our email address to your address/ contacts book and ensure that our Newsletter does not get sent to the Spam/ Junk folder


Email



Unsubscribe